Democracy or Republic?

Terra dei Cittadini

Terra dei Cittadini

#StayWoke
Pronouns
he/they
TNP Nation
terra_dei_cittadini
Discord
Cylke#5219
Democracy is where people get to exercise government via themselves or elected officials. For example, the people protesting a transphobic law made by the state government.

Republicanism is where government is exclusively executed by elected officials. For example, the US' legislative process.

Which is better? Should TNP be a democracy or a republic?

I'd say democracy, since it allows for fringe minorities to be eliminated and for the majority will to be rightfully executed. For example, in a republic, fringe minorities such as Christian nationalists would be able to manhandle the government.
 
To start off, there are two major forms of democracy—direct democracy and representative democracy. Direct democracy is the first example you mentioned (people exercising government through themselves), and representative democracy the second (through elected officials). I would consider most republics to be a form of representative democracy. If you are referring to democracy representing a choice between exercising their right themselves or transferring it to an elected official, I believe that's what one calls a liquid democracy.

Now, for the North Pacific, I would say that we don't really have quite a classification for it. Citizens can vote on legislation in the Regional Assembly, sort of a direct democracy, but we still have a few elected officials (the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, and Justices), in addition to several appointed ones. I would say that we should stay with our current system, since it allows citizens to have a voice within the government but leaves positions that require far more competence to elected and appointed officials.

It's also important to note that a republic does not exclusively give power to elected officials; referenda exist in most modern republics. Most states in the world, currently, would better be classified as democratic republics—a mix between the two.

Although it is true that, inside a direct democracy, the will of the majority would be executed instead of relying on elected officials. However, in a republic or representative democracy, fringe groups taking power is still fairly rare, since the officials are still elected by the people. There are rare cases where people radicalize within their terms, but since a republic/representative still gives some power to the people, it would be rare for fringe minorities to have a large grasp of power.
 
Sauron:
To start off, there are two major forms of democracy—direct democracy and representative democracy. Direct democracy is the first example you mentioned (people exercising government through themselves), and representative democracy the second (through elected officials). I would consider most republics to be a form of representative democracy. If you are referring to democracy representing a choice between exercising their right themselves or transferring it to an elected official, I believe that's what one calls a liquid democracy.

Now, for the North Pacific, I would say that we don't really have quite a classification for it. Citizens can vote on legislation in the Regional Assembly, sort of a direct democracy, but we still have a few elected officials (the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, and Justices), in addition to several appointed ones. I would say that we should stay with our current system, since it allows citizens to have a voice within the government but leaves positions that require far more competence to elected and appointed officials.

It's also important to note that a republic does not exclusively give power to elected officials; referenda exist in most modern republics. Most states in the world, currently, would better be classified as democratic republics—a mix between the two.

Although it is true that, inside a direct democracy, the will of the majority would be executed instead of relying on elected officials. However, in a republic or representative democracy, fringe groups taking power is still fairly rare, since the officials are still elected by the people. There are rare cases where people radicalize within their terms, but since a republic/representative still gives some power to the people, it would be rare for fringe minorities to have a large grasp of power.
Click to expand...
I would have to disagree with the fringe minorities being powerless, as we see the United States elected bigots and conservatives such as MTG, Ron DeHimmler, and groups such as the Proud Boys infringing on the liberty of the marginalized.

Democracy does not allow for liberty to be infringed, and that's what we're seeing conservatives do. The Founding Slavers did not want conservatism to rule, and liberalism was hence the dominant ideology of the founders.
 
I think you need to stop drawing parallels between TNP and real-life politics. None of our political issues resemble real-life politics in any way. Also your definitions of democracy and republicanism are wrong, although truth be told there is no single agreed-upon definition for these two very broad terms. Sauron's analysis is much more spot-on.
 
Last edited:
Terra dei Cittadini:
Which is better? Should TNP be a democracy or a republic?
Click to expand...
This false dichotomy is useless because we can be both. Republics are just countries where the head of state isn't hereditary, which is easily compatible with being a democracy. Since our head of state is the elected delegate without any hereditary rights, we are necessarily a republic, and since we hold frequent, free, fair, and contested elections, with full franchise for all citizens, we are also a democracy.
There's nothing of substance to discuss here, and your reference to real life is unfounded.
 
Attempted Socialism:
This false dichotomy is useless because we can be both. Republics are just countries where the head of state isn't hereditary, which is easily compatible with being a democracy. Since our head of state is the elected delegate without any hereditary rights, we are necessarily a republic, and since we hold frequent, free, fair, and contested elections, with full franchise for all citizens, we are also a democracy.
There's nothing of substance to discuss here, and your reference to real life is unfounded.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly. Democracies and republics are not mutually exclusive; they're quite the opposite. Most republics are democracies, and vice versa.
 
I love how this started as a genuine discussion then went completely off the rails. To be fair, though, what Attempted Socialism said is definitely correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top